V. JAGANNATHAN, J.

1. Those two criminal appeals arise out of one and the same judgment of the Court below. A-1 and A-2 were the accused who have preferred these appeals and they were convicted by the trial Court in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(i)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The prosecution case in short is that, the accused viz., Malini, was working as a Second Division Assistant in Taluk Office, Mysore, and A-1 Chikkarangaiah was working as Gram Sahayak in the same office and they were approached by the complainant Sabeeha Begum who was in need of minority community certificate. As she had made the application for issue of the said certificate to the Tahsildar, she approached the accused and as per the complaint, A-1 Chikkarangaiah is said to have demanded `200/-from the complainant for issuance of the minority certificate. As A-1 asked the complainant to bring the amount on 17.2.97, the complainant unwilling to pay the bribe amount of `200/- to A-1, went and lodged her complaint with the Lokayukta police on the same day. As the case was registered on the basis of the complainant Ex.P1 and after conducting the entrustment mahazar as per Ex.P3, the complainant along with the shadow witness Sumangala Bai (PW-5) went to the office of the accused at about 2.20 p.m. It is the prosecution case that the trap was successful inasmuch as A-1 accepted the bribe amount of `200/- on the direction of A-2. After the test conducted proved to be positive insofar as A-1 is concerned, after obtaining the sanction order Ex.P12, the charge sheet was submitted.

3. The accused denied the prosecution case and therefore several witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution apart from marking 21 documents and 8 M.Os. The accused statement was recorded and no witness was examined in defence of the accused.

4. Learned trial Judge after evidence appreciation, took the view that the evidence of PW-1 the complainant is corroborated by the shadow witness PW-5 and as A-1 and A-2 with the common intention had demanded and accepted the bribe amount of `200/-, the trial Court therefore convicted both the accused with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. Both the accused were sentenced to pay `5,000/-fine apart from undergoing six months RI. for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In respect of conviction u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the said Act, both the accused were sentenced to one year R.I. and pay `5,000/-fine. Default sentences were also awarded.

5. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused have approached this Court and Crl.A.No.366/07 is by A-2 and the other appeal Crl.A.No.366/07 (sic 327 of 2007) is by A-1.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel Sri C.G. Sundar for the appellant i.e. A-2 and his argument is adopted by the learned Counsel for A-1. I have also heard the learned Counsel for the Lokayukta Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy and perused the records of this case.

7. Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant A-2 is that, a careful reading of the evidence on record would go to show that there is no corroboration between PW-1 and PW-5. In this connection, it is submitted that the evidence of PW-5 completely rules out the evidence of PW-1 with regard to the complainant and the shadow witness going inside the office of the accused for enquiry and handing over the bribe amount. Secondly, it is argued that, neither A-1 nor A-2 made any demand, but on the other hand, the complainant herself volunteered to give the amount to A-1 who refused it and then she approached A-2. A-2 also refused to accept the bribe amount and then again the complainant approached A-1 and gave the amount to A-1 who took it and kept it in his pocket.

8. This therefore goes to show that there was no demand made by the accused at all. Secondly, it is pointed out from the evidence of the investigating officer that the certificate of the complainant was kept ready